What a lot of folks are missing

[CarolinaSock]

All those saying our problems are a result of poor coaching, how do you explain our 12-4 season last year and never finishing lower than 7-9 under Fox? Surely if he gets the flak for this season, then he should get the plaudits for the prior years.

As Scott has said, it is not as simple as assuming all these problems stem from Fox and Hurney. We had a whole host of new coaches this season and considering how entrenched their predecessors were, it could suggest why certain positions have struggled to be 'on the ball' as they are suddenly being asked to do different things after years of following the same principles.

It could well be that the opposition has fallen on a few tendencies that are 'showing our hand'. Not every opponent has exploited our problems and we have not looked incompetant against all opponents. A Scott pointed out, the standard of talent is there in any team so winning in this league is often a coin flip.

Or could it simply be an all round 'age factor' that has crept into several of our game changers and a few sophomore slumps from the youngsters?

Do not be quick to just declare that Fox and Hurney have out warn their welcome here.

The defense is finally playing like fans have wanted in a while. They are attacking, they are blitzing, LBs are creating pressure and sacks. Davis and Beason look like pro bowlers out there. Even the line is chipping in to give opposing teams problems in their passing game. Is it perfect? No. But bar press coverage not many make too many complaints about our D these days, other thant he scapegoat Godfrey...

Considering how bad it appeared in the pre-season, I would think the coaches are doing something right? Obviously that is all down to Meeks and not Fox...

Personally I have grown tired of many of Fox's attributes, but I certainly am not counting out his ability to run a team. Few have alluded that he is losing the locker room, if that is true then THAT is the only reason he should go, not his coaching - he is fine in that department.

It seems a lot of people are still whining and crying about extending Jake and franchising Pep. Let's look at it another way. The fan backlash would have been insane if they had not franchised Pep after being able to lock Gross up long term. Trust me they would be under more pressure to win if they had let him go. Jake's deal was a no brainer considering our cap problems once Pep was franchised.

Unfortunately that seems to be the main root for people being unhappy with the FO, forgetting the great moves they had made up until then. Also forgetting the impressive moves they have made since Kemo went down. They did not panic, took their time and found people who could genuinely help at minimal cost. Frankly I am looking forward to seeing th DTs in action next camp, we could well have found one or two LONG TERM answers at the position. Who knows, but I was impressed that they were pro active and did what needed to do without chucking money at a no namer or potential headache...

No one and I genuinely mean NO ONE on the outside of the organisation knows why this team has under performed. Frankly though you can't pin it all on Fox, nor Hurney, nor Jake or even Pep. Several issues have cropped up after a mightily impressive 2008 (get over the playoffs already) are we that impatient of a fan base to not even see if Fox can do what he has always done and rescue the season when it appears lost? That is his main attribute and a source of good coaching. He never gives up.

I've personally never been very impressed with the coaching on this team at least when it comes to game plans. Try to think how many times this team has surprised (pleasantly) you under Fox when it came to a game plan or strategy. I see other teams star wide receivers running wide open and wonder why our players almost never seem to be wide open. Our receivers get open running good routes, but how often does our offense cause blown coverages? Or how often does a blitz of ours cause someone to get through unblocked?

It's not coaching or a scheme, it's the sheer talent on our roster that has led to our success. Almost everyone acknowledges we have a top 5 LB core, top 10 DE, top 10 CB, possibly the best RB duo, a game changing WR, and a top 5 run blocking OL. Look around the league and not many teams have this many players considered top talent.

I'll hold judgement on our progress until we play an actually good team. We've played 2 of the worse offenses in the league the last 2 weeks and beat both teams by only 1 score. We've got another bottom of the barrel offense coming to town this week.

[Urrymonster]

It's not coaching or a scheme, it's the sheer talent on our roster that has led to our success. Almost everyone acknowledges we have a top 5 LB core, top 10 DE, top 10 CB, possibly the best RB duo, a game changing WR, and a top 5 run blocking OL. Look around the league and not many teams have this many players considered top talent.

That is fair enough, this part though I think is mis-leading.

'Talent' is subjective. There is no way of measuring it, no way of prooving it. In my mind all players in this league are so very finely divided that the talented ones are the ones that find the right home, the right system to play in or the right set of circumstances to thrive in.

Those that label our team as having top 5 in everything are purely labeling them on reputation and results. Beason was considered our best LB by everyone and was also considered one of the top MLB in the league, behind Willis. Yet a subtle change in scheme and it is Davis who is turning heads and making the big plays. Does this mean Beason is any less of a player, or that Davis was under performing before? No, not at all, they both appear quality players, but it is the changing of circumstances and schemes that is allowing one to appear to edge out the other. Fact is they are both very athletic and smart LBs, not much seperates them, yet a very subtle change in our scheme and they have flip flopped in production.

How many times have we seen a 'talented' player go from one team and under perform in another? Countless. Think Haynesworth. Think Owens. Think Landon Johnson. All players from a range of abilities, yet they have not settled in their new homes. Has their talent dimished? Unlikely, just the new schemes and supporting casts are preventing them from showing that talent. It is rare to see one player bounce from team to team and STILL perform to the level his talent shows. Think about Vilma. He was once considered a top LB in New York as the D revolved around him, the scheme changes and he is almost considered a bust. Moves to NO and has not captured his past quality, but is now performing again.

Fact is, every single team in the league hand picks players based on their schemes. It is why you simply can't build a franchise through free agency, it does not work. It takes a while for players to learn the new scheme AND the defense is not built around their strengths. Draftees get hand picked to fill a specific role, they get 3 years to learn it and then all their strengths are shown without revealing their weaknesses.

San Diego used to be a 'talented' team. They are not considered to be now despite having the same core of players. The term talent is thrown about too much, it is impossible to determine and impossible to measure. Production is the only way of measuring players and as that does not always translate from team to team, then it is difficult to rely on production to determine talent.

That is why Fox is always consistently there in record. He preaches fundamentals and consistency, granted they are not there this year, but by the end of the season in all prior years they have. You preach fundaments, then your team will not make huge mistakes and the law of averages will swing in your favor. Is it flashy? Hell no, but it produces, because there are simply less things that can go wrong. So whilst we do not throw people off guard, we also very rarely get blown out the water. Unless your QB has shocker...

In short, how do you actually know this team is talented?

[PantherBrew]

f**k you Mr. Scot, and your fancy reasoning.

We don't need that kinda logic here.

We like to blame one single thing because its comforting to know if we could just fix that single thing we could be a Super bowl team.

So dont be spewing irrefutable facts and well thought out reasoning, it is not wanted.

j/k good post brother. and nice job OP.

[jramsey4]

Right on the money as usual Mr. S. Our problems are deeper then just at QB. But you have to admit it is a very big one.

[CRA]

there are some good points made but it is still downplaying the drastic effect a QB has on a team's ability and overall performance.....look at 07.

07-Jake

07-Vinny

07-Carr

07-Moore

all 4 of those QBs lead distinctly different looking teams within the same season. To say this team would be no better or worse w/ Moore starting defies logic.....we simply don't know which direction it would go.

[CatMan72]

I agree that in most cases you can't place the blame on just one person - but in this particular case I think you can place the blame for most of our struggles squarley on the shoulders of Jake. It doesn't matter how good or bad the rest of the team plays if the QB turns the ball over at a rate of 2x per game. The majority of the time, Jake isn't turning the ball over because people are not getting open or because he's not getting protection - he's turning the ball over because he's making inaccurate passes and bad decisions. If Jake were a young QB, it would make sense to cut him a little slack - but Jake is a veteran and we should be able to count on him to take care of the football a little more.

People blame Fox and Hurney because they are the captains of this sinking ship - that's how it works. Was the captain of the Titanic actually steering the ship or even on the bridge when it hit the iceburg? no - but it's his "fault" because it was his crew that failed to protect their passengers... that's the price of being in command.

[carolinanimal]

i dont think anyone is missing all the other things wrong with this team. i think they are focusing on what they think is the most easily correctable and will have the most effect.

They look at other teams in the league and say "why not us?", and honestly i have to ask the same question.

If you compare our team to some others say like the saints. position for position we match up pretty well agianst them. Where they have the distinct and obvious advantage is QB and Playcalling. We have all seen how that makes a HUGE difference in a team. Look at the falcons that franchise was in shambles you would think they would be in for years of rebuilding. what happened? the go to playoffs 1st year, and this year probably will go again, breaking their streak of no back to back losing seasons, while we hopefully make it to .500 this year. Reason? matt ryan and to some extent mike mularky, plain and simple.

it is hard in todays nfl to make a team good enough to cover over a mediocre qb and playcalling. the other aspects of your team would have to be phenomonal. it is much easier(albeit harder to find) a qb and play caller that are of higher quality. look at tom brady. he had jabar gaffney, troy brown and deon branch at wr. and still have a good offense.

i also think john fox's philosophy needs updating. not so that its outdated but updating, run the ball , stop the run, keep it close works in certain situations, but not everytime. his reluctance to bring in any competent qbs or wr depth may cost this team dearly.

[Newtcase]

While you point out a lot of individual problems Mr.Scot, I would like to point out the cascade effect of these problems.

Jake plays bad, turns the ball over.

-Defense gets tired, ran all over, looks bad.

--Running backs are keyed in on by opposing D because they're the only threat.

---Receiving talent doesn't develop and is wasted.

----Coaches and assistants look like idiots.

This isn't everything, and it's certainly just one way to look at things. However, you can't argue that bad QB play can cause a cascade of the issues you mentioned. Thus a single change could fix ALOT!

[Kevin Greene]

Technically they just did

Should have been more specific.. GM and Head coach.

[firstdayfan]

I agree with some of that Mr Scot but I really don't think people complain about Jake because its easy. Think of the impact that good QB's have had on teams like the Vikings, Falcons, Texans, Dolphins, and Bears. Look at the teams that are doing badly and they either have an aging QB whose talent is dwindling, young QB that needs to improve greatly, or a complete QB disaster where they really don't have a viable starter...Browns, Rams, Lions, Titans, Redskins, Bills, Buccanears, and the Raiders.

Those teams have talent and some even have good coaches but the clear problem they all share is a below average QB situation. Its not easy to switch QB and find success but think about how could the Saints, Colts, or Packers would be without their QB's. Its the most important position on the field and the person that touches the ball on nearly every play. If the QB is bad, then it begins a domino effect that makes everything else bad around them.

There are obviously exceptions to the rule like the Chargers who have a good QB and are struggling or a team like the Broncos who have an average QB and are excelling but these are exceptions and no where near the rule.

[Cyberjag]

Jeff Davidson's playcalling is a problem, not the problem. But if he paid more attention to Jake's passing issues they would be less of a problem, not the problem. And the sets he chooses have had a lot to do with the lack of a complementary receiving threat, which is a problem, not the problem.

Offensive line weaknesses are a problem, not the problem, but if they were fixed then Jake's passing issues might be less of a problem, not the problem, and more time in the pocket may allow time to develop a complementary receiving threat, the lack thereof is a problem, not the problem. Better protection would certainly help with Ball security issues, which at least at the QB spot have been a problem, not the problem. It's hard to hold the ball when you're hit from behind while trying to pass.

Ball security issues - including those from previously reliable guys like DeAngelo Williams - are a problem, not the problem. But three fumbles lost by your starting backs are not insurmountable. This wouldn't be as high on my priority list as others.

Defensive struggles against the run are a problem, not the problem. Hollis Thomas went a long way towards addressing these. Maybe this can get less focus now, bravo to the Front Office and Coaching staff.

Danny Crossman's special teams coaching is a problem, not the problem. But a longer field certainly helps the defense, and a short one makes it easier for the opponents to score.

Aside from the offensive line issues, it looks like a lot can be addressed by getting Crossman and Davidson to adjust their approach. If I was prioritizing, that's where I would start.

But it's easier to put Moore in and throw up your hands in despair if he doesn't work out than it would be to get a game plan to maximize your team's strengths...

[DaveThePanther2008]

Mr Scot you always write great stuff and I truly believe you should be hired over the slugs we have reporting on the Panthers. Even when I disagree you still make valid points.

Of all your points the one that is NOT improving is complimentary receiver. Which takes me to John Fox's worst attribute. Loyalty. I think it is time to move Moose into the Slot and give Jarrett/Moore a shot at #2. Someone has to make defenses pay for doubling Smitty. Moose isn't getting it done. The only way the death grip on S. Smith is gonna be loosened is when the #2 makes them pay. Of course once the passing game comes online the running game improves.

Go Panthers

[N1kkadeemuz]

Jake is a mediocore QB, not much more.

I agree with much of what you say Scotty but we all know this.

[Mesmer]

So basically, what we already know is that we have a lot of problems from top to bottom.

So remind me again why we're wrong in spreading around the hate?